The "aggregation of marginal gains" is a bit of a buzz-phrase in British sport at the moment due to the immense success of British Cycling and the approach of their PD Sir Dave Brailsford to maximise improvement by making as many improvements, no matter how minor, as possible.

We have adopted "aggregation of marginal gains within our programme as a kind of mantra (as have many performance sports in the UK), but it has got me thinking...

Aggregation of marginal gains is an excellent philosophy when you have already achieved your major gains - in other words, when you have world class basics you can look for the marginal gains on top.

So, what are the World Class Basics a tennis player should have before they seek marginal gains?!?!?

To keep it interesting (and manageable!) I will give you 5 slots for your World Class Basics! Please also indicate whether you are a tennis player, coach, educator, whatever as I will be interested to see if different sub groups have a different opinion!

Over to you...

Cheers

Oops - forgot my five...

1) Effective first serve (high percentage 65+)
2) Ability to remain at least neutral off the second serve
3) 80% trading ball (rally ball) of both sides
4) Movement efficient enough to protect contact point
5) Ability to take time away from opponent (i.e hit early mid-court ball)

*I reserve the right to edit this list as I see fit and change my mind/have my mind changed

Those seem too general, but I have an idea in my mind about what I'm looking for. I mostly focus on visual patterns at this point. I'm looking for a certain general form (I use video) and then try to develop drills for the student to adapt to that form.

I've coached high school tennis in the past and given lessons to friends and family. I've been a professional educator and am sort of a tennis fanatic.

so the marginal advantage should be gained in proportion to the correlation.

or are you looking for something else.

I am an rec trying to coaching own kids in tennis/golf.

Click to expand...

Whatever you think should be a world class basic skill!?!? There are no right answers (at least I don't think there are!!!). So from your stats analysis what 5 things does a player have to have/be able to do?

That's why I put a limit to 5 items/areas - my list would be miles long otherwise! I'm sure everybody will have a list of 5 things every player should be able to do, I'm wondering if it's possible to synthesise them into a sort of "Super 5"!

Whatever you think should be a world class basic skill!?!? There are no right answers (at least I don't think there are!!!). So from your stats analysis what 5 things does a player have to have/be able to do?

the low ranked guys topping the 1st srv won board probably are people like Dr. Ivo who suffer in other departments.

I think the most surprising stat here is the severe asymmetry between 2nd srv and rtn 2..... you'd think that quite often the 2nd srv points start neutral (on average the server and the returner win 51% and 49% of them), so the 2 correlation values should be about the same.... but 0.614 vs. 0.288 is quite a big difference.

the other thought is - this should be do-able at the amateur levels, you run some app and let parents or the bench guys collect stats, you can come up with customized training plan for each player pretty fast.

1) Effective first serve (high percentage 65+)
2) Ability to remain at least neutral off the second serve
3) 80% trading ball (rally ball) of both sides
4) Movement efficient enough to protect contact point
5) Ability to take time away from opponent (i.e hit early mid-court ball)

*I reserve the right to edit this list as I see fit and change my mind/have my mind changed

Click to expand...

I would add to this the ability to neutralize an opponents serve and a good second serve return points won. Also, the ability to have a good transition game from defence to offence as all good pro's posses this.

What does World Class mean? That it applies to word class tennis players only?

Because for something like effective first serve, I don't see what is achieved by listing it without mentioning a level. My effective first serve is not effective against Djokovic. So that means I should treat everything else as marginal till my serve is effective against Djokovic?

Or is it per level? That makes more sense. Solidify the 5 important skills for a particular level before taking on minor things. I can relate to that, having seen adult clinics where ladies want to be taught intricate doubles strategies but don't know that backhand grip is not the same as forehand.

Or is it a third thing altogether (namely BS)? Because I have seen numerous such BS lists and approaches and methodologies come and go in management style over the years I have been a manager. A lot of buzz, a lot of training, tons of consultants making a buck, and then it fizzles out under the pressure of reality.

Well, I work at a world class level, so for me that's what it means - but it's all relative to the level at which you play or the player you teach is playing - so your point two is where you should pitch your list - now have at it!

Effective strokes means technique should not be glorified over winning, till the point of injury prevention. Recreational play is a dangerous land where good technique and winning are not necessarily coincident.

Enjoyment of the game and strokes and feel of the ball should be the prime motivation, without which the activity will come to a stop soon, as I have seen in many people.

I approach the instruction in a similar way and will try to make it fit in your basic
5 format.

1. Baseline rally shots, Second serve, and basic serve rtn, -basic skills to play
and enjoy this game with most anyone even close to your level. core fundamentals of
the game imo.

2. Mid Court Attack shots- add this level to your game and you can not only play
and mix it up with those near your level, but you can force the issue to some
extent based on how well you do it. Includes slice along with drives.

3. Finishing shots- 1st serves, close in Overheads & Volleys- with some of these
skills, you can capitalize on your opportunities, earned and found.

4. Agility/Fitness level to employ your game

5. Mindset and context for how the game is played.

4 & 5 are developed as I bring them thru 1, 2 & 3 in order related to proficiency,
but all 5 are intro'd with some practice along the way.
City Tennis Director, 20+ yrs instructing, coached my own 2 children to D1
full rides with my 3rd ahead of their schedule. Work mostly with competing Jrs.
a former college athlete, MA instructor, and Military pilot instructor TPS.

i´ll give it a try.
i like the challenge, as it makes me think what it is i want to achieve.
this is from a coaches standpoint, working with kids of different talents and ambition.

the following points are maybe the foundation that i like to lay, on which they can build their game and not be limited in their development

1 technical foundation which include the right grips for every stroke and
biomechanically sound strokes that don´t lead to injuries
2 tactical understanding of tennis as a game
3 movement, with priorities on balance and efficiency, and also the tactical
side of where to move
4 mental aspects of the game, which cover a wide area. from the ability to
handle pressure to the ability to handle your opponents. how to deal with
bad days, and so on
5 athletic development. again a wide area, which covers everything from
cross-training in other ball sports to develop additional coordination
abilities, to injury prevention and so on

of course there is another way of answering your question.
i could say, i want them to

1 have an efficient first serve with a high percentage
2 reliable second serve with the ability to hit with different spins and reliable
placement
3 return consistently and attack weak second serves
4 be able to rally consistently and adapt to the playing style of their
opponents
5 be able to finish a point in different ways

long post. i intend to come back to add or substract. in other words, it´s a work in progress

Your first 5 is very general and essentially addresses the 4 performance factors (physical, technical, tactical and mental), which is to generic for where I am looking to go with this I am wondering if we can really dial down into specific skills!

I approach the instruction in a similar way and will try to make it fit in your basic
5 format.

1. Baseline rally shots, Second serve, and basic serve rtn, -basic skills to play
and enjoy this game with most anyone even close to your level. core fundamentals of
the game imo.

2. Mid Court Attack shots- add this level to your game and you can not only play
and mix it up with those near your level, but you can force the issue to some
extent based on how well you do it. Includes slice along with drives.

3. Finishing shots- 1st serves, close in Overheads & Volleys- with some of these
skills, you can capitalize on your opportunities, earned and found.

4. Agility/Fitness level to employ your game

5. Mindset and context for how the game is played.

4 & 5 are developed as I bring them thru 1, 2 & 3 in order related to proficiency,
but all 5 are intro'd with some practice along the way.

Click to expand...

Good stuff! Although I'm pretty sure you've snuck more than 5 in there!

- 2nd serve with good enough placement, spin and pace (in that order) to use tactically, i.e. take opponent out wide, hit high to their backhand or keep them guessing.
- Well developed topspin backhand. Most players will attack the backhand. Having a weapon backhand means that you will win tactically as their strategies break down. This also helps with return of serve %.
- Bouncy* footwork when your opponent strikes the ball
- Going back to the T** type positioning after strokes
- inside-out drop shot that spins off-court from both wings.

Rationale: These skills neutralise most of the cookie cutter baseline attack the backhand tactics that I see and will help players develop an all-court game imo. What do you guys think? I have 4 out of the 5 so far, for my level, working on my serve.

* this is the appropriate scientific terminology.. trust me.
** the tennis equivalent of the squash positioning, neutralising angles of attack forcing your opponent to hit lower % shots, or give you a juicy ball in your strike zone.

Your first 5 is very general and essentially addresses the 4 performance factors (physical, technical, tactical and mental), which is to generic for where I am looking to go with this I am wondering if we can really dial down into specific skills!

Good stuff! Although I'm pretty sure you've snuck more than 5 in there!

Click to expand...

Thanks Ash. I wasn't quite sure at what level you were trying to take this to,
but I'm really liking the break down I use for 1, 2, & 3 for giving the player an
idea on where they are and where they need to be. You can always improve on
the various things inside the three groups, but until you are solid at each group,
you are not a complete player.

You can also evaluate your play day to day with those first 3 groups.
Example- a player may say today they rallied well (#1) with the opponent, but
could not execute well enough on the mid ct opportunities (#2) to win or earn the
chance to get looks to finish (#3).
Or another player may have rallied well (#1) and attacked mid ct well (#2),
but struggled to finish despite some easy overhead and volley looks to putaway (#3).
Even with that evaluation, this second player may have eecked out a win.

Assuming the player has a basic game to start with:
1. Second serve that enables the player to get an advantage in the point.
2. First serve that is a weapon -many serves not returned at all.
Having #1 enables #2. (Look what happens to Verdasco when he starts doubting his second serve)
3. Block serve return that can be placed anywhere on the court (see Federer).
4. Ability to take the ball on the rise effectively (enables court positioning)
5. Ability to hit effectively on the run (defense to offense).

The "aggregation of marginal gains" is a bit of a buzz-phrase in British sport at the moment due to the immense success of British Cycling and the approach of their PD Sir Dave Brailsford to maximise improvement by making as many improvements, no matter how minor, as possible.

...

Aggregation of marginal gains is an excellent philosophy when you have already achieved your major gains - in other words, when you have world class basics you can look for the marginal gains on top.

Click to expand...

One might take the view that big gains are aggregations of marginal gains. This seems to me to be the way that basics are actually learned. Thus, consciously applying the philosophy of "aggregation of marginal gains" isn't precluded by lack of basic abilites for a certain level of play.

That is, what should a player be able to do to compete at the world class level? To answer this question meaningfully, the answers should be formulated in terms of minimum requirements for speed, placement, etc., which will hopefully lead to some notion of Minimum Daily Adult Tennis Pro Requirements.

Regarding first serve, my guess for the minimum placement requirement is the ability to serve, at will, to within a foot of any line. For speed, to serve at 110-114mph with 65% in, at 115-119mph with 60% in, and at 120+mph with 55% in. (all estimations refer to competition).

To do this, the placement requirement is the same as that for the first serve. For topspin and kick serves, there has to be enough spin to bounce the ball out of the returner's comfort zone. Minimum speed, say, ~ 90mph.

For rallying, I'd say that world class players have the ability to hit typical rally shots virtually indefinitely. What's the minimum pace for a typical or average world class rally shot to be able to stay in a point? Not sure. For placement, my guess is the ability to hit within two feet of any line at will.

One might take the view that big gains are aggregations of marginal gains. This seems to me to be the way that basics are actually learned. Thus, consciously applying the philosophy of "aggregation of marginal gains" isn't precluded by lack of basic abilites for a certain level of play.

Click to expand...

In the context of British Cycling, where the phrase in relation to elite sport anyway, was coined, aggregation of marginal gains roughly translates to what else can we do on top of what we already have. Their track bikes, for example, were totally deconstructed part by part to see if each individual part could be improved in anyway. Even if only a 0.1% improvement was possible, it would be done as across many, many components, collectively these 0.1% gains could make a 0.001s difference on the track. Which could be the difference between a gold medal and a silver, or a medal and no medal. Many would not make a 0.1% improvement to a component, assuming that it would not have an impact. British Cycling did, but only after they had World Class Basics in place for everything.

My point in relation to tennis was that (especially prevalent on here )players ofter loon to make tiny adjustments to stuff, "should I change string tension by 0.5%", "should I add 3.25gs of lead for a better swing weight", "if I change my racquet angle by 1 degree at contact will I get more spin" etc etc - it's totally the wrong way round! Develop world class basics first and then try the little things!

Cheers

P.S. As for Pro's being able to hit to within 2 feet of the lines at will - I think 5263 would have something to say about that !!!

In the context of British Cycling, where the phrase in relation to elite sport anyway, was coined, aggregation of marginal gains roughly translates to what else can we do on top of what we already have. Their track bikes, for example, were totally deconstructed part by part to see if each individual part could be improved in anyway. Even if only a 0.1% improvement was possible, it would be done as across many, many components, collectively these 0.1% gains could make a 0.001s difference on the track. Which could be the difference between a gold medal and a silver, or a medal and no medal. Many would not make a 0.1% improvement to a component, assuming that it would not have an impact. British Cycling did, but only after they had World Class Basics in place for everything.

My point in relation to tennis was that (especially prevalent on here )players ofter loon to make tiny adjustments to stuff, "should I change string tension by 0.5%", "should I add 3.25gs of lead for a better swing weight", "if I change my racquet angle by 1 degree at contact will I get more spin" etc etc - it's totally the wrong way round! Develop world class basics first and then try the little things!

Cheers

P.S. As for Pro's being able to hit to within 2 feet of the lines at will - I think 5263 would have something to say about that !!!

Click to expand...

I see. Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Also, I forgot to mention in my previous post that I'm a low level recreational player (~ 2 years playing experience) and lifelong tennis fan.

So, do you think that (for world class level) being able to hit to within 2 feet of the lines at will is too close or not close enough? How about the minimum serve speeds I posted? Are they close?

P.S. As for Pro's being able to hit to within 2 feet of the lines at will - I think 5263 would have something to say about that !!!

Click to expand...

Maybe the sideline for dtl and for serve, but otherwise, I don't see where anyone
can intentionally do it except when playing clearly weaker opponents.
I also think for someone to believe this is the path to improvement, will lead
to more frustration and occasional fleeting success.
Ash, since you took note; any thoughts ?

^^^Even on the possible examples you have posted above, I don't see it as an acceptable risk for all but the most elite players (and then against weak opposition) and the data I have collected of shot mapping shows that whilst shots may bounce inside 2 feet from the lines at pro level, the general pattern indicates that the target area was much safer in intent.

^^^Even on the possible examples you have posted above, I don't see it as an acceptable risk for all but the most elite players (and then against weak opposition) and the data I have collected of shot mapping shows that whilst shots may bounce inside 2 feet from the lines at pro level, the general pattern indicates that the target area was much safer in intent.

Click to expand...

How about between 3 to 4 feet (at will) then? If there are minimum placement ability requirements (and surely there are), then we should be able to express that in numbers.

It just occurred to me that the situation has to be normalized also. So, let's say 50 consecutive in shots, each within 3 feet of some line, hitting balls fed by a ball machine set at its highest speed.